Coggins v. Coggins
132 So. 3d 636
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Bill and Alicia Coggins divorced after a marriage (1999–2009) and have one minor daughter, Izabella, who has mild autism and requires personalized care.
- The chancery court’s 2010 divorce judgment awarded periodic alimony to Alicia and required Bill to maintain a $350,000 life-insurance policy naming Alicia and Izabella as beneficiaries; Bill appealed those items.
- In Coggins I, this Court affirmed child support but reversed and remanded the alimony and life-insurance designations because the chancellor failed to account for a $25,000 payment from Bill to Alicia in valuing their separate estates and did not sufficiently explain the life-insurance ruling.
- On remand the chancellor considered the $25,000 payment, found Alicia’s estate still deficient (due largely to income disparity and Alicia’s reduced earning capacity from caring for Izabella), awarded Alicia $504/month periodic alimony, and again ordered Bill to designate Alicia beneficiary of $175,000 of his life-insurance policy.
- Bill appealed again, challenging (1) the Armstrong analysis and alimony award, (2) alleged cohabitation by Alicia that would warrant termination or modification, and (3) the life-insurance beneficiary designation amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Armstrong analysis and alimony were warranted after accounting for the $25,000 payment | Alicia: After adding the $25,000, her estate remained deficient; Armstrong analysis appropriate | Bill: The chancellor misapplied the mandate and failed to subtract the $25,000 from his own estate, so no alimony basis | Court: Affirmed chancellor — estates were "approximately the same," chancellor properly found Alicia still deficient and conducted Armstrong analysis |
| Whether $504/month periodic alimony was appropriate | Alicia: Income disparity and her caregiving duties justify periodic alimony | Bill: Factual findings on incomes/expenses wrong; award is disguised post-emancipation child support | Court: Affirmed — findings supported; childcare factor (daughter’s special needs) properly weighed; not post-emancipation support |
| Whether Alicia’s alleged cohabitation/"de facto marriage" terminates or reduces alimony | Bill: Alicia cohabits with boyfriend, presumption of mutual support or de facto marriage should suspend alimony | Alicia: Boyfriend does not live there, contributes no support; presumption rebutted | Court: Affirmed chancellor — factual findings that no cohabitation or mutual support existed were not clearly erroneous; no de facto marriage shown |
| Whether requiring Bill to name Alicia beneficiary of $175,000 life insurance was proper | Alicia: Insurance protects against unpaid vested alimony if Bill dies | Bill: Amount excessive relative to survivable alimony obligations | Court: Reversed and remanded — insurance requirement may be justified only to cover alimony obligations that survive payor’s death; $175,000 (≈30 years of payments) is excessive; chancery must set amount commensurate to potential surviving obligations |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors for alimony determinations)
- In re Estate of Hodges, 807 So.2d 438 (Miss. 2002) (periodic alimony terminates at payor's death; only vested obligations may survive)
- Johnson v. Pogue, 716 So.2d 1123 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (life-insurance requirement may be excessive relative to alimony purpose)
- Scharwath v. Scharwath, 702 So.2d 1210 (Miss. 1997) (cohabitation creates presumption of mutual support that can justify modifying alimony)
- Pritchard v. Pritchard, 99 So.3d 1174 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (de facto marriage can terminate alimony when parties structure relationship to avoid forfeiture)
- Beezley v. Beezley, 917 So.2d 803 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (chancellor may require life insurance to protect against vested unpaid alimony)